/liberty/ - Liberty

>>68596

>but Ford actually saw better profits from this because his employees were able now to reinvest in his business by buying the cars

That's a terrible argument entirely missing the point. You never make more by undercutting yourself. You do it by doing it to your competition. It's like saying I'll make more sales if I start giving away money. You could argue that he would seek to benefit from having some sort of monopoly on maintenance, but that still isn't the same line of circular logic. He invested in keeping his workers away from competitors. It was a gamble and it worked. The key thing here is that it was his own decision and calculations, not a State decree forcing every other business which can't sustain itself under such policy. That happens later.

There is no ideal ratio because no job is quite exactly the same, nor is every person.

>And yet, this didn't crash the industry or get him out of business as some people would decry

Would like to hear who those people are because I don't think anybody would say that without examining the economic conditions at all. This isn't alchemy. Nobody would think that being able to offer more absolutely has to diminish your profits, or that it's going to "crash the industry."

>How did that affect the economic history

It hurt entrepreneurship and completely politicized worker relations. Instead of working, the first thing on both employer and employee's mind is to lobby for legal privileges, and the rest can wait after. Before it was a struggle with the market on who can offer a better service. Now it's about who shall be allowed to work and who will not.

>>68600

Good to know. Funny how now the unions allied with the Democrats support illegal immigrants. You'd think it be the opposite given their history.

>>68601

It's technically possible that you could pay your workers more so they would invest in your business and not something else. Like paying them 15 dollars instead of 12, so they invest 4 in you instead of 3 in another business. That would mean you have one dollar more than if you paid them less. What's just a pipedream is keeping your business afloat that way. The most you can get back from workers is what you paid them at a later date, so you always make a loss compared to if you didn't hire them at all under that scheme.

Not sure an entrepreneur can even count on the effect I said can exist. That would require a lot of finetuning and precise knowledge of value scales, and breaks apart if the workers only buy the product once. And at best, it's for cost saving answay.

>>68604

Something similar is being done in providing tax exempt food coupons. Although that is only relevant because of taxation.

>>68596

Ford's ideas were a morale disaster. He had to raise wages in order to keep people willing to perform as he told them to. However, it turned out he could tell them to perform in a way that churned out a lot of cars. It was still economically advantageous even after paying people enough to tolerate doing it. Ford gave people jobs with dreadful rates of psychic profit. He made up for it with material profit.

>>68606

>Ford gave people jobs with dreadful rates of psychic profit. He made up for it with material profit.

That could very well be the definition of a job, the balance between bullshit that has to be put up with and profit made. Using this definition the state is as always terrible as it decreases profit while either maintaining bullshit to be put up with or increasing it.

>>68609

There is not a simple slider between material and psychic profit, but there is a tradeoff to be made.

Mass production was WORSE than most jobs. It reduced people to simple automata. Only superior productivity made it worthwhile.

Automation has since released man from a set of objectively terrible jobs. Psychic profit has been reclaimed without giving up the superior material productivity achieved by the process of breaking down tasks to steps that can be performed by simple automata.

>>68596

There is no good universal standard. That's why we have the free market and not central planning. Different people have different innate levels of industriousness, so they can choose the job that suits them best in terms of work to leisure ratio.

The ideal is 100%.

>>68732

When I was still new to working I only wanted more free time. Eventually I got used to it and everything got done a lot easier and faster. No matter how repetitive or lowly the work, there's always a sense of fulfillment when you've surpassed both yourself and every one of your coworkers. Now I don't want any days off. It feels like wasted time. Even when studying I perform better when mixing it with some active work. The only thing I ask for is to not be progressively punished for doing better.

>>68737

I spent some of my free-time during work hours researching ways to increase my productivity, so I can have more free-time. Now I spend half my time reading/bsing.

>>68744

I spend it studying to get a better job. When I'm not studying "for work" I study Philosophy and Economics as a hobby. That's pretty much all of my private life. I feel somewhat satisfied with where my life is heading for once. Occasionally I'd check what's going on here, regret coming, and leave the page.

>>68749

>he dosnt enjoy getting angry at shitposts

why do you keep coming back?

>>68760

Sometimes there's an interesting thread. Definitely not often enough to visit regularly.